Second Amendment, Militia, (comma) vs Militia

[OMDP]

Gunsby Blazen

We really don't need renegades on the loose trying to spark problems, causing panic, or breaking the law.

Of course, but there are systems in place to deal with them if they are a problem, because there is no protection for them.

We need to preserve our system and our government because lets face it, its pretty darn good. To get your message across, we need to work within the system and not be overly drastic.

Exactly, but it is a balancing act that could tip either way if you are not careful.

I know that is not what you mean, OMDP, but continuous paramilitary training could result in a misunderstanding. We need to have more faith in our government.

Well it seems to work at the moment the way it is, training is not so important as when things get worse then training can be given and there are enough former army personnel and the national guard to make sure training could take place afterwards.

 

[legaleagle_45]

OMDP wrote:

I think it is the only reason why it was introduced

I don't think so. I think the primary reason that all the provisions of the BoR's were introduced was in an effort by the anti-federalists to scuttle the ratification process of the Constitution. The provisions themselves were derived from either common law rights established by the the English BoR's, the Magna Carta or by specific abuses that the colonies endured at the hands of the British in the lead up to the Revolution (the 3rd would be an example of that). Thus, I believe that the rights protected (and not merely the 2nd) must be examined in the context of the nature of that right as it was understood in 1789. Thus, freedom of speech did not defeat actions for libel and slander.

OMDP wrote:

The ability to be able to use your gun for other purposes is not protected by the keeping clause.

At common law the right to keep arms included the right to use arms for individual self defense and for all "divers other purposes allowed by law".... Rex v Gardner.... plus a lot of other authority. The provision in the English BoR's arose out of a "proto right" which was infringed upon by the Stuart kings through the use of the Game Acts, which used the language "may not keep arms". The Game Acts were directed at the private arms owned by individuals which could be used for illegal hunting.

A man may have the social duty to keep arms,

This an important concept to understand OMDP. The "proto right" grew out of a legal obligation and the nature of the arms protected was coextensive with legal obligation. They were required to own certain arms to fulfill societal obligations. The financial obligation was tempered by the unstated understanding that they they could use such weapons for private purposes. An excellant treatise on this subject is Joyce Lee Malcolm's "To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right".

OMDP wrote:

The easiest way to say it is that an individual has the right to be in the militia.

Excellant! Not too many people see that... I would articulate it as follows: "A person may not be arbitrarily excluded from the militia for reasons unrelated to their ability to perform militia duties." Now consider the implications of such a right in the modern day context. Are there any groups today which are excluded even thought they are capable of serving? Don't ask, don't tell..................

So, we have 2 uniquely and seperate individual rights. One has a primarily milita context and the other has a primarily personal usage context.

Welcome to THR, OMDP. I think you will find it a much friendlier forum than Yahoo........

 

[Nobody's_Hero]

I see your point, but I have been thinking on this for the past few days and I came to the conclusion there are a few people around that at least have the perception that this WILL happen one day. We really don't need renegades on the loose trying to spark problems, causing panic, or breaking the law.
You know there are groups of people out in the boondocks who are training for such a case and hoping for the opportunity to strike down our government. These militia have a name, domestic terrorists. And, these are the bad guys.
We need to preserve our system and our government because lets face it, its pretty darn good. To get your message across, we need to work within the system and not be overly drastic.
I know that is not what you mean, OMDP, but continuous paramilitary training could result in a misunderstanding. We need to have more faith in our government.

That is so surreal, I can't even tell whether or not it is sarcasm.

 

[Gunsby_Blazen]

What are you referring to, Nobody's Hero??

 

[Nobody's_Hero]

I mean, militia being the "bad guys" and "domestic terrorists"? That was sarcasm, right?

And: "We need to have more faith in our government"?


"A patriot must always be ready to defend
his country against his government." - Edward Abbey

 

[Gunsby_Blazen]

oh no no no, please don't get me wrong.
I understand what the second amendment is for and I think we all need to own firearms and know how to use them well. I just don't think we should be actively supporting overthrow. We have our guns for protection (in more ways than one). We do need to have more faith in our government. I didn't say we should blindly follow their word and be sheep to the agenda of many of our politicians. I didn't say to have faith in our politicians, I said to have faith in our system. Some militia are domestic terrorists and preach the destruction of this governmental with a substitution of what they see is idea, but this may not be ideal to everyone.

Also, I am not saying we should lay down and take it. There are better means to address issues democratically.
Sorry about generalizing...

 

[Gunsby_Blazen]

You know, there is a difference between offense and defense...

if you plan to attack the government or those who disagree with you, with force, I think you fall into the category of "bad guy"

 

[Aguila Blanca]

As citizens, we have to partake in our governmental process and work within the rules. Remember, speech is the most powerful weapon. I hope we all have as much faith in our system of government as I do…
While we all have the right to own weapons, we also have the duty to ensure they are never used.

I don't know how much faith you have in our system of government. Personally, I have very little faith in the current government the system has produced. If the "system" cannot correct the government, then I have no reason for faith in the system.

Where is it written that we have a "duty" to ensure that weapons are never used? If the intent of the Founders was that weapons ("arms") were never to be used by the People to hold the government in check ... why would they have gone to the trouble of writing into the Constitution an amendement saying that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? If you study the writings of the men responsible for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you should know that they very much anticipated the possibility that those arms might have to be used to restore the system of government. That doesn't sound to me like they were establishing any "duty" to ensure that arms would never be used.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The nature of the militia has also changed. The militia is no longer there supplement the militia (with the exception of the national guard) as a military force like it was, it serves the purpose of being there if the need arises to take over the US govt, and would more than likely use guerilla techniques.

If the militia does need modern weaponry apart from basic firearms, then you would have to assume that they would be provided for by either the federal govt or the state govts.

It is not easy to get the fine line between safety from the govt and safety from citizens. The founding fathers more than likely left this to be vague so that it could be decided on by the people in their time, because the founders could not imagine a world with our weaponry.

I believe you are missing the point. The fact that the current government has co-opted the Militia does not in any way affect the intent of the Founders. Their writings at the time were opposed to standing armies, and they very much were of the opinion that the People were entitled to have access to all the arms ("all the terrible implements of war," I think was how one of them phrased it) available to the army, precisely for the reason that they intended for the military to always be subservient to the civilian populace. Their entire intent was that, if a standing army serving the government were unleashed on the people, the People should have whatever arms were necessary to overwhelm the army.

If that means I should be able to keep a nuke or three in the basement ... so be it.

It was not the intent of the Founders that the Militia would be supplied arms by the government.

 

[Gunsby_Blazen]

Aguila, if you have read any of my earlier posts in this thread, you would acknowledge that I understand that.
The founding fathers gave us that as a last resort. I am sure they did not intend for us to get bloody. Somehow I doubt that fighting eachothers countrymen would be encouraged. Our constitution was set up to encourage peaceful resolution and to find resolve in debate rather than going up in arms at every chance we get.

Anyway, I don't think war is a good way of taking care of domestic problems...
but, I am still glad you "get it"

 

[ctdonath]

Actually Jefferson (IIRC) recommended it every 20 years or so.

 

[yokel]

The Real Reason They Hate the 2nd Amendment

Imagine what the purveyors of despotic socialism might try (and get away with) without this deterrent.

It is, subconsciously, factored into every move they make.

 

[H088]

So to the people who view the militia as being "out dated" or "unnecessary", would you rather the 2nd amendment not exist? Or how would you change it?

 

[Gunsby_Blazen]

Wow, yes those are some good points,
and Yokel, I think your right about that...

The Second, I don't know if i would change it, its pretty clear. you have other primary documents and secondarys from the era that give a clear view on its purpose. The liberals want to cover that up I think. I really don't understand how the left could be for all other liberties but not this one, its the ULTIMATE in liberty. I mean, come on, it protects our other liberties.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Ibtl

... But now looking at the constitution you have to distinguish between the the powers of the govt to provide for safety and the need for the militia to have arms.

The militia , according to the Constitution, is the ONLY source of power available to the Union to provide for the "safety" of the Union(Article I, Section 8, Clause 15). The only "safety" Congress is charged with providing is to protect the several states from invasion(Article IV, Section 4). Disarming or limiting the arms available to the militia is self-defeating.

What weapons are allowed and what weapons are not allowed? Nuclear bombs? I would say a definate no, they pose too much of a threat to the citizens of the country against the actually need of the militia for such weapons.

No weapon poses any threat. Threat comes from the person - or the government - with the evil intent. The mere keeping and bearing of arms is totaly benign and innocuous.

Certainly the courts do not seem to have a problem with the US govt banning certain types of guns, or other weapons. How much of a threat do modern cannons pose to the legitimate govt of the USA?

Then the Court isn't doing its job. Again, the threat does not come from the arms.

The nature of the militia has also changed. The militia is no longer there supplement the militia (with the exception of the national guard) as a military force like it was, it serves the purpose of being there if the need arises to take over the US govt, and would more than likely use guerilla techniques.

First, the militia is not a force that would overthrow or invade those running government. The militia is a force composed of citizens under the control of the civil authority. An "Insurgency" or "Revolutionary" force would be the proper nomenclature for the armed force that would be employed to take over or oust those running government. Just so you know, the National Guard IS the militia - the portion of the militia called into the employ of the Union(Article I, Section 8, Clause 16).

It is not easy to get the fine line between safety from the govt and safety from citizens. The founding fathers more than likely left this to be vague so that it could be decided on by the people in their time, because the founders could not imagine a world with our weaponry.

It would be arrogant to opine that the Founding Fathers knew nothing of the advancements of arms throughout history. It would be arrogant to think they lacked any vision that arms would improve in the future. They did, however, include a provision in the Constitution to change anything in the Constitution: Article V. If you wish government to have power to limit arms available to the people, use the power in that article to amend the Constitution to that end.

If the militia does need modern weaponry apart from basic firearms, then you would have to assume that they would be provided for by either the federal govt or the state govts.

There is no need to assume this. See Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, of the Constitution. This does not, however, negate a person from providing himself or herself with whatever arms he or she sees fit to keep and bear.

I think it is the only reason why it was introduced, that does not mean to say it is the only thing it protects. An individual person can have a gun, regardless of the nature of the militia, but the right was given for the specific reason of safeguarding the nation from bad govt.

I can agree with this in principle.

The ability to be able to use your gun for other purposes is not protected by the keeping clause. It may well be possible to do many things legally.
A man may have the social duty to keep arms, so the militia has them, however this has to be prescribed by law, otherwise it is merely something they can do if they choose.
From the individual point of view, they can merely keep a gun at home.

Agreed in principle as well.

Most actions that are protected, though, come under the bearing of arms.

No actions are protected in the Second Amendment vis-a-vis the use of arms. Law can be written that limits or prohibits certain uses of arms. Example: Law can be written prohibiting the discharge of firearms in town except in cases of self defense. No law could be written that would prohibit you from bearing your arms in town without infringing upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Second Amendment doesn't say individuals have the right to keep and bear anything. It says that government may not infringe upon the right. The right is preexistent to the Constitution, and not granted by it.

As the theory goes. But here we are dealing with the way the constitution works. It does not matter if there is a preexisting right or not, the fact is the constitution merely prevents the govt from doing something.

Essentially, we agree here.

Yes they said arms, and they probably meant all arms. However, they wrote freedom of speech, does that mean an individual is free to say everything they want without reproach? No it does not. It doesn't because it's a protection from having your speech abridged, and it's not a protection to a right of free speech.
The problem is that each part of the constitution is equal, what happens when two parts clash?Where is the clash? Also a constitution is not designed to implode on itself. The bearing of arms cannot be for all individuals, because otherwise that would mean people would have their own militias, meaning a threat to the legitimate govt of the USA.
At what point does the security of the constitution, legitimate govt and the people itself get over taken by the keeping of all arms? The logical example here as i have used before is nuclear weapons.

The answer to the last of this paragraph is that those in government do not have the power to prevent an insurrection or revolution and are, therefore, charged with the responsibility to see that neither of those things becomes necessary. We the People retain our arms so that those in government remember this and act accordingly.

The vagueness in the term "arms" is logical. However i cannot see that it can protect all arms.

You are confusing "all inclusive" with "vagueness". These words are not synonymous, and the word "arms" is not vague. If the Founding Fathers wished not to prohibit government from infringing certain classes of arms, they would have so stated as I've pointed out before.

In Emerson, and being used by others, they claim that bear means to carry. Ie, that carry and conceal is protected. However there is nothing that backs their claim up, just because it could mean that, does not mean it does. The fact that bear arms is used as a synonym for carrying out military service, suggests this is what it means. This is how the founders used it.

I beg to differ on how the Founding Fathers used "bear". "Bear" does not include "pulling the trigger" as one would be required to do in an act of military service. "Bear" simply means to bring to bear upon the enemy - bring to battle. All good soldiers await the commands of "Ready, Aim, Fire!", of "Fire at will", etc.

Again, it is the same, the RKBA shall not be infringed. The nearest you can get to a difference is that what shall not be infringed is the whole amendment up to this point, rather than just the RKBA, but then there is nothing to be infringed before this point.

Right. So, all the fuss about the militia clause is futile at best. It is the sales pitch that bought us "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Beyond this, it only serves to remind us that we do have the power to keep those in government on the straight and narrow.

Yes. Now compare this to the second amendment. You have weapons inthe USA which would couse harm to others without reasonable cause. Nuclear weapons for example. Keep them in your room and you will kill or harm others with the radiation.
But again, the point that say a person in a one bedroomed flat in a big city with a howitzer. How are they going to practice using it?
You have to remember that the 2A is the ultimate check and balance, it is also the one that could be abused the most.
You do not want a legitimate govt being taken over by a minority of people. Now, you have a group of people which claim to be a militia, they store arms, they have enough arms to form a decent sized army. They are obviously a threat to the security of the USA and a legitimate govt. At what point does the power of the federal govt kick in to prevent their constitution being destroyed by people who are not fighting on behalf of the militia?

Like I said, it's up to those in government to see that revolution never becomes necessary. If someone or some group wished to overthrow the government, we have the militia to stop them. An army of insurgents would get arms regardless of any laws to the contrary, so, disarming the loyal citizenry is counter to the security of the Union, our freedom, or the security of any of the several states.

I see your point, but I have been thinking on this for the past few days and I came to the conclusion there are a few people around that at least have the perception that this WILL happen one day. We really don't need renegades on the loose trying to spark problems, causing panic, or breaking the law.
You know there are groups of people out in the boondocks who are training for such a case and hoping for the opportunity to strike down our government. These militia have a name, domestic terrorists. And, these are the bad guys.
We need to preserve our system and our government because lets face it, its pretty darn good. To get your message across, we need to work within the system and not be overly drastic.

Well said, Gunsby Blazen, but I'd like all of us to refrain from calling these "domestic terrorists" any from of militia. Militia they are not. The militia is a body of citizens acting as soldiers at the behest of the civil authority. Even a peaceful, law abiding group or individual doing training in preparation for militia duty are/is not the militia until called upon for militia duty.

The Second, I don't know if i would change it, its pretty clear. you have other primary documents and secondarys from the era that give a clear view on its purpose. The liberals want to cover that up I think. I really don't understand how the left could be for all other liberties but not this one, its the ULTIMATE in liberty. I mean, come on, it protects our other liberties.

The leftist liberals don't like this protection of our right to keep and bear arms because the armed populace is the only brick wall in their face holding them back from turning us all into slaves to and/or total dependents of the state.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

 

[Prince Yamato]

Oh Lord, we're fighting for handguns in DC, and out come the "I want to own nukes people." I'm going with the NRA and most of the sane people on this. I'm pretty sure they mean "small arms"- which means anything you can carry. Barring the fact that most of the people championing explosive ordinance ownership are probably the last people I want to be neighbors with, how do you plan on storing said weapons so that they don't become a hazard in the instance your house catches fire? It's one thing when you're ammo goes "pop pop pop", it's another when your cache of RPGs explodes and sends shrapnel into the local FDs trying to put out the blaze. I'm also going to bet that there isn't an insurance company in the world that will reimburse you when your possessions are destroyed by incendiary devices and you have 700lbs of fireman guts about your property. I won't even get into the logistics of owning chemical weapons. There's enough danger with people making meth in their homes, let alone people owning things like smallpox bombs. Someone in another thread brought up the point once: by merely owning things like nukes and biobombs, are you not in fact posing a threat to your neighbors and do they not have the right to defend themselves against the threat that you posses by in fact possessing such weapons? I would definitely get queasy about Bob Smith and the next unit owning Anthrax or other such substance.

2A = right to small arms.

 

[Gunsby_Blazen]

Constitution Cowboy-
Well said, Gunsby Blazen, but I'd like all of us to refrain from calling these "domestic terrorists" any from of militia. Militia they are not. The militia is a body of citizens acting as soldiers at the behest of the civil authority. Even a peaceful, law abiding group or individual doing training in preparation for militia duty are/is not the militia until called upon for militia duty.

Good point, these groups are indeed not militia.
Thanks for correcting me.
I completely agree.

 

[H088]

eh I think RPG's are within the small-arms category, but they would need to be the hardest to obtain if they were ever to be sold.

 

[UnTainted]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Here's how I kinda look at it, though I think that this is something about which I expect to continue developing deeper levels of understanding:

I see a center clause that is the main point, the most important point, the ultimate goal. This is "being necessary to the security of a free State,";

The clause to each side of the center clause are designed to support the center clause, and to provide a means for the center clause to be accomplished. I also see the side clauses providing means for the other side clause to be accomplished. The people keeping and bearing arms is necessary for a free State, and a well regulated milita is also neccessary for a free state. NEITHER can provide a free state ALONE. A well regulated militia can not, because, if existing as a formed group, it could fall under corruption threatening the free State. A group or mass of citizens armed, but not organized such as a well regulated militia, might not successfully stand up to the threat or government. It might just create certain levels of chaos and unfocused fighting. The term militia, in my opinion, means both the formed military organizations - as they should serve the country above all, we pray - and the unformed militia comprised of citizens armed or willing to accept arms, which if organized and formed into a well regulated unit, would become the very militia the founders knew could ENSURE a free State.

Now remember, it is a free State that provides the right to self defense, and the right to conceal carry, and the right to those other higher-than-law rights we all possess. So though it seems the Second is about having guns, it is also, in my opinion, a clear formula for a successful strategy against tyranny and corruption.

Hillary? Obama? Do you ever listen to me? A normal citizen? hmmmm????

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Well said, Gunsby Blazen, but I'd like all of us to refrain from calling these "domestic terrorists" any from of militia. Militia they are not. The militia is a body of citizens acting as soldiers at the behest of the civil authority. Even a peaceful, law abiding group or individual doing training in preparation for militia duty are/is not the militia until called upon for militia duty.

I disagree.

The language of the Militia Act of 1903 says:

Section 1. "Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

The original Milita Act of 1792 said:

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside....

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

I don't see anything in either the original or the 1903 revision to suggest that the People are not the Militia unless and until called forth by the civilian authority.

 

[OMDP]

Legaleagle

The provisions themselves were derived from either common law rights established by the the English BoR's, the Magna Carta or by specific abuses that the colonies endured at the hands of the British in the lead up to the Revolution (the 3rd would be an example of that). Thus, I believe that the rights protected (and not merely the 2nd) must be examined in the context of the nature of that right as it was understood in 1789. Thus, freedom of speech did not defeat actions for libel and slander.

I agree. However i also believe that the founders took what they saw in common law and changed to meet their own requirements. Certainly the RBA in the english BoR was no where near what is in the 2A. Yes we can see a process and must not be ignored.

At common law the right to keep arms included the right to use arms for individual self defense and for all "divers other purposes allowed by law".... Rex v Gardner.... plus a lot of other authority. The provision in the English BoR's arose out of a "proto right" which was infringed upon by the Stuart kings through the use of the Game Acts, which used the language "may not keep arms". The Game Acts were directed at the private arms owned by individuals which could be used for illegal hunting.

I believe there is a right to self defence within the BoR, i just don't think it comes specifically from the 2A.
The problem with the english BoR is that is that the term "right" meant something different then. It was more about political freedom. By 1789 it seemed to have been seen more along a fundamental god given line that it was in England. Only protestants were allowed guns and i believe it was only for those who earned a certain wage or had a certain amount of land.
I do believe also that carrying a loaded gun on horseback was not protected, which could be seen as leading on to carry and conceal not being allowed.

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

The one thing that seems a little odd is that not one of the states prior to 1789 had actually bothered with a right to keep arms clause. I'm not sure why that is. Certainly the three bear arms clauses, two did not include self defence within their clauses. So i would be inclined to be a bit skeptical about whether what was being passed on from british common law, had actually reached the 2A.
The language of the pennsylvanian bear arms clause suggests that the founders would have been aware that if they wanted to protect self defence through the allowing of arms (yet not the carry and concealing) then they could and probably should have done it in a different way.

Obviously it the 2A did not jump out of no where, and if we look at the other pojnt you make about the context of the war of independence then we can also see reasons why they would introduce such a clause. They feared a govt with the power of an unchecked armed force.

This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishement of an effective militia to the eastward. The assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making, to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia, but they were always defeated by the influence of the crown.

They were required to own certain arms to fulfill societal obligations.

I agree to a certain extent. The discussions in the house over the 2A attempted to make this binding from a constitutional point of view, which would then have forced the govt to make people in the militia. However they chose not to do this. They got rid of the religiously scrupulous clause and they introduced the 1792 militia act. Probably better. The problem is that most people actually are in the militia in the US, the unorganised militia. However they are not, and have never been, required to own weapons because of the constitution.
The obligation is one similar to jury service. The govt can require you to do so. However they don't, and conscription is considered a better way of doing this now.

Excellant! Not too many people see that... I would articulate it as follows: "A person may not be arbitrarily excluded from the militia for reasons unrelated to their ability to perform militia duties." Now consider the implications of such a right in the modern day context. Are there any groups today which are excluded even thought they are capable of serving? Don't ask, don't tell..................

I swear you told me this in the first place, just took a long time to seep in.
The main people to be excluded are those found guilty after due process.
The problem though is that an individual can join the militia and be told to be a cook. So in fact it is not the right to bear arms, sort of.

So, we have 2 uniquely and seperate individual rights. One has a primarily milita context and the other has a primarily personal usage context.

Yes, this is made quite clear by Mr Scott

Mr. SCOTT objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He said, if this becomes part of the constitution, we can neither call upon such persons for services nor an equivalent; it is attended with still further difficulties, for you can never depend upon your militia. This will lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, as in this case you must have recourse to a standing army.

Welcome to THR, OMDP. I think you will find it a much friendlier forum than Yahoo........

Well, not hard. I left there a long time ago, was pottering about on ezboard, but that wasn't much better.

 

[OMDP]

Aguila blanca

If that means I should be able to keep a nuke or three in the basement ... so be it.

It was not the intent of the Founders that the Militia would be supplied arms by the government.

I have been thinking about how to simplify what i said, and i think it is this.

The 2A does not protect arms to exist. It protects individuals to have arms. It therefore does not in any way protect the right of a nuclear weapon to exist. Does it protect the right of an individual to keep a nuke? No, i don't believe it does. As long as an individual can get arms, then there is no problem. Now i have mentioned the distorting the market to make them more expensive. Well i think nukes are prohibitively expensive anyway. Besides, nukes conflict with article 1 section 8.

 

[OMDP]

Gunsby blazen

The Second, I don't know if i would change it, its pretty clear. you have other primary documents and secondarys from the era that give a clear view on its purpose. The liberals want to cover that up I think. I really don't understand how the left could be for all other liberties but not this one, its the ULTIMATE in liberty. I mean, come on, it protects our other liberties.

Most of what people who are in favour of guns use to show that the 2A means that everyone can have guns for whatever purpose (almost) start from the hypothesis that the RKBA means everyone can have guns. A quick look at some quotes used by these people

"…The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose…"
- Thomas M. Cooley, 19th century Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court

Now, depending on how someone views RKBA, depends on how this sentence will come across. If you assume that RKBA protects carry and conceal then Cooley is in favour of carry and conceal, if you think bearing means carrying then hunting is protected and Cooley is saying that hunting is protected. But that is not what he is saying.

The problem is generally both sides of the debate choose how they are going to view the evidence, rather than actually looking at it properly. Look at the Heller case, i am not sure which is the most comical, DC for trying to negate an amendment by saying the militia doesn't exist, or the other side for saying keeping arms is protected by the bear arms clause. Surely keeping arms is protected by the keeping arms clause.

 

[OMDP]

ConstitutionCowboy

The militia , according to the Constitution, is the ONLY source of power available to the Union to provide for the "safety" of the Union(Article I, Section 8, Clause 15).

What about the armed forces. What about the FBI and CIA?

The only "safety" Congress is charged with providing is to protect the several states from invasion(Article IV, Section 4). Disarming or limiting the arms available to the militia is self-defeating.

I disagree.
"Section 8. The Congress shall have power to...provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

The way the whole section is written is that "The Congress shall have the power to..." followed by each bit that is given to them.

Yes there is a limit to this due to the powers that the states have for non-federal crimes. But ANY constitution should not have the ability for a legitimate government to be taken down by force that the constitution offers.

No weapon poses any threat. Threat comes from the person - or the government - with the evil intent. The mere keeping and bearing of arms is totaly benign and innocuous.

Actually nuclear weapons do pose a threat, they can kill you without intent. Just ask marie currie.

Then the Court isn't doing its job. Again, the threat does not come from the arms.

The threat comes from people with arms to be able to do enough damage.
However as i have made the point in another post. The right is not that of the right of arms to exist, but of individuals to be able to have arms. That does not mean they have the right to all arms, otherwise they could say that your gun should be in their possession. You have the right to be able to have arms. Does that include cannons? I don't believe it does.

First, the militia is not a force that would overthrow or invade those running government.

That is one of its main purposes, if it came to the point where it was needed.

The whole point is, who decides when a govt has become bad or illegitimate? Is it not better that a force comprising people appointed by the states, acting on behalf of the people decides this, or just anyone, like McVeigh for example?

It would be arrogant to opine that the Founding Fathers knew nothing of the advancements of arms throughout history.

They did not know about FUTURE advances, like aeroplanes and the like.
They new weapons would advance, they knew they could not predict it, so they made it so it could be vague enough to survive the test of time, that does not mean they protected all arms.

The answer to the last of this paragraph is that those in government do not have the power to prevent an insurrection or revolution and are, therefore, charged with the responsibility to see that neither of those things becomes necessary. We the People retain our arms so that those in government remember this and act accordingly.

I am not sure on your point here. Nobody has the legal right to take down the constitution or the government, but if it comes to the point where the govt is illegitimate then they have the tools to do so. This is what i am saying.

You are confusing "all inclusive" with "vagueness". These words are not synonymous, and the word "arms" is not vague. If the Founding Fathers wished not to prohibit government from infringing certain classes of arms, they would have so stated as I've pointed out before.

And i disagree. As this would be protecting the arms, rather than the individual to have arms. The right is, the right of the people to keep arms. It does not say that an individual has the right to keep all arms, this would lead to some sort of communistic stockpiling. Nor does it say that an individual can have all types of weapons. It merely says the govt cannot prevent an individual from having arms. Now, an individual with one gun is an individual with arms, they are protected in having that weapon. But there is nothing that says that a nuclear weapon, or any other weapon as a single type, is protected.

I beg to differ on how the Founding Fathers used "bear". "Bear" does not include "pulling the trigger" as one would be required to do in an act of military service. "Bear" simply means to bring to bear upon the enemy - bring to battle. All good soldiers await the commands of "Ready, Aim, Fire!", of "Fire at will", etc.

I disagree.

June 8th 1789
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 17th 1789
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

Two versions of the 2A that went through congress. The next two reverted back to the initial version, the rest all went for the second version and became a part of the constitution. it seems clear that render military service and bear arms are, here, synonyms.

The founding fathers in congress also used this in the same manner, using them as synonyms.

Like I said, it's up to those in government to see that revolution never becomes necessary. If someone or some group wished to overthrow the government, we have the militia to stop them. An army of insurgents would get arms regardless of any laws to the contrary, so, disarming the loyal citizenry is counter to the security of the Union, our freedom, or the security of any of the several states.

I agree, but i do not agree with some other point that lead you to this conclusion.

 

[H088]

ODMP,

So you are saying its OK to ban most guns as long as that single shot .22LR rifle is still available , I could see that really working out well

At a minimum the second amendment should protect all small-arms, and any arm you could physically carry by hand.